Measurement invariance by age group for the aging men’s masculinity ideologies inventory:
To date, work on masculinity ideologies, or the culture-based standards and norms expected of boys and men, has focused almost exclusively on younger adulthood....
Edward HT; Webster BA; Stanley JT; Levant RF
The Journal of Men’s Studies
2020
2020-03-15
Article information provided for research and reference use only. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
journalArticle
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/1060826520911159" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1177/1060826520911159</a>
The development and evaluation of a brief form of the normative male alexithymia scale (NMAS-BF).
Female; Humans; Male; Adult; Aged; Middle Aged; Reproducibility of Results; Psychometrics; Factor Analysis Statistical; Socialization; Affective Symptoms/diagnosis/psychology; Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale/standards
The current study extended prior work on the Normative Male Alexithymia Scale (NMAS), a unidimensional measure of some men's limitations in expressing emotion that results from gender-based socialization informed by the masculine norm of restrictive emotionality (RE). Data (N = 505 men) were from Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. First, dimensionality was reassessed using exploratory factor analysis, which supported the unidimensional structure. Second, based on these results, three 6-item models of the NMAS-Brief Form (NMAS-BF) were developed, based on classical test theory (CTT), CTT optimized to avoid item redundancy, and item response theory (IRT). Third, the relative fits of these versions were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis on a separate part of the sample, finding that the IRT version was the best fitting model. Fourth, evidence for reliability for the
Levant RF; Parent MC
Journal of counseling psychology
2019
2019-03
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
journalArticle
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000312" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1037/cou0000312</a>
PMID: 30284847
Moderation and mediation of the relationships between masculinity ideology and health status.
Adolescent; Female; Humans; Male; Adult; Aged; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Surveys and Questionnaires; Health Status; Masculinity; Health Behavior/physiology
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the direct and indirect relationships between the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology (TMI) and self-reported health status through potential mediating variables of expectations of benefits from health risk behaviors and actual health risk behaviors. In addition, the objective was to test the moderating effect of gender identity, broadly defined (including cisgender and transgender men and women and nonbinary persons). METHOD: Participants (N = 1233; 34.3% transgender) participated in an online survey, responding to measures of TMI, expectations of benefits, health behaviors, health status, and demographics. Data were analyzed using conditional process modeling. RESULTS: TMI was positively and directly associated with general health status for self-identified men (regardless of their sex assigned at birth), and with mental health for both men and women, but was not associated with physical health for persons of any gender identity. TMI was positively and directly associated with expectations of benefits for both men and women. Expectations of benefits from engaging in health risk behaviors was positively associated with health risk behaviors, and health risk behaviors had a large negative association with health status, for people of all gender identities. CONCLUSIONS: TMI may be a general and mental health protective factor for self-identified men, and a mental health protective factor for women, regardless of assigned sex at birth. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Levant RF; Jadaszewski S; Alto K; Richmond K; Pardo S; Keo-Meier C; Gerdes Z
Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association
2019
2019-02
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
journalArticle
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000709" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1037/hea0000709</a>
PMID: 30652914
An appraisal of the american psychological association's clinical practice guideline for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder.
Humans; Adult; Comorbidity; United States; Attitude of Health Personnel; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Professional Autonomy; Psychotherapy/methods/standards; Societies Scientific; Evidence-Based Practice/methods/standards; Stress Disorders Post-Traumatic/diagnosis/psychology/therapy
In 2017, the American Psychological Association published the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Adults. Although the Guideline Development Panel aimed to produce guidelines based on the best available scientific evidence, concerns were raised that the guidelines would constrain the implementation of some effective psychotherapies and limit clinician autonomy, potentially leading to coverage for only manualized, time-limited, cognitive-behavioral treatments. The following article reviews the PTSD guidelines in light of the evidence-based practice in psychology policy adopted by the American Psychological Association in 2006. We highlight the strengths of the guidelines as currently written while recognizing areas in which the guidelines do not meet evidence-based practice in psychology recommendations. A clinical vignette of the treatment of a complex patient with PTSD and significant comorbidities is provided to illustrate the difficulty of clinical decision-making and how the guidelines may complicate the delivery of effective treatments. We conclude with recommendations on how to consider a broad range of research evidence, appropriately integrate clinician expertise, and better appreciate the role of patient values and preferences in PTSD treatment decision-making. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Silver KE; Levant RF
Psychotherapy
2019
2019-09
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.
journalArticle
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000230" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1037/pst0000230</a>
PMID: 31282711
Development and evaluation of a new short form of the conformity to masculine norms inventory (CMNI-30).
The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI) has been an important tool in researching masculinity. With the original measure at 94 items (Mahalik et al., 2003), there have been several abbreviated forms developed from 11 to 55 items. However, in confirmatory factor analyses (CFA's) testing 13 common factors, bifactor, hierarchical, and unidimensional models, only 4 models demonstrated adequate fit to the data, and most of these were for the still quite long 46-item version. As a result, there was no psychometrically strong truly short form of the CMNI. In the present study, data from 1561 community and university men were used to develop a short form. First an exploratory factor analysis using a portion of the data was conducted, which resulted in a 10-subscale dimensionality, followed by CFA estimating a common factors model. The results of the CFA were used to create two candidate models for a 30-item short form of the CMNI, based on Classical test theory (CTT) and optimized CTT. The best-fitting candidate model for the CMNI-30 was CTT. Next, the fit of the 29, 46, and 94 item models were compared to the 30-item version, which had the superior fit. Then, measurement invariance between White men and men of color was assessed, choosing this comparison because hegemonic masculinity is theorized to marginalize men of color. Evidence was found for full configural and metric, and partial scalar and residuals invariance. Finally, significant relationships between CMNI-30 scores and indicators of depression and anxiety provides preliminary concurrent evidence for its validity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Levant RF; McDermott R; Parent MC; Alshabani N; Mahalik JR; Hammer JH
Journal of counseling psychology
2020
2020-02-03
Article information provided for research and reference use only. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
journalArticle
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000414" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1037/cou0000414</a>
PMID: 32011153